Avodah Mailing List
Volume 04 : Number 300
Monday, January 17 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:57:38 +0200
From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@zahav.net.il>
Subject: Agunot: News flash from the Beit Din Rabbani in Tel Aviv
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0030_01BF6135.DE5F1F00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1255"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
(I received permission to publish this in this forum b/c of the interest =
shown here)
The topic: Agunot=20
The issues:=20
a) Paskening Chiyuv Get to couples who have spent over 18 months apart, =
and where attempts at Shalom Bayit have failed; and=20
b) delaying Psikat Get to couples who haven't finished organizing their =
financial issues.
Till now only very few Herkevim would Pasken Chiyuv Get for couples who =
have been apart for over 18 months, those who did usually basing the =
Psika on Psika by Rav Chayim Filagi ZT"L. Some of the comments (usually =
not for the Protocol) were that he was (a) Sephardi or (b) if he lived =
today he wouldn't consider 18 months separation sufficient time to rule =
out Shalom Bayit.... etc.
Just recently (2 days ago!) the Dayanim in the Beit Din in Tel Aviv =
received a copy of a Psikat Chiyuv Get from the Beit Din of Rav Moshe =
Feinstein ZT"L which stated (Hebrew in English letters):
"...SheZe Harbe Shanim Leika Shlom Bayit VeZeh KeShana Vachetzi [18 =
months, S.B.] She'Atem Garim BeemKomot Shonim" .... "She'lo Ho'eel Kol =
Hishtadlutam La'asot Shalom..."
"Ve'Im Ken... Be'Ofen Kazeh Muchrachin LeHitgaresh Ve'Ein Reshut Leshum =
Tzad Le'Agen Lo HaBa'al Et Ishto VeLo HaIsha Et HaBa'al..."
And regarding the second issue (b) -- rarely till now have Dayanim =
paskened that couples (in Israel) finish the Get and then take care of =
the financial matters, there are many many cases pending where the =
Dayanim, upon hearing that the parties haven't resolved the financial =
matters, would tell them to go and take care of them and only then =
return for Psikat Get. In this Psak we find the following:
"...Ve'Ein Reshut LeShum Tzad [as above-s.b.] Le'Agen... BeShum Ikuv =
MeeTzad Tevi'ot Mamon...".
From reports from the Beit Din today it sounds like there are going to =
be some changes in the near future now that this psak has been found and =
confirmed as authentic.
Shoshana L. Boublil
------=_NextPart_000_0030_01BF6135.DE5F1F00
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="windows-1255"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1255" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2014.210" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>(I received permission to =
publish this=20
in this forum b/c of the interest shown here)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>The topic: Agunot =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>The =
issues: </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>a) Paskening Chiyuv =
Get to=20
couples who have spent over 18 months apart, and where attempts at =
Shalom Bayit=20
have failed; and </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>b) delaying Psikat =
Get to couples=20
who haven't finished organizing their financial issues.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>Till now only very few =
Herkevim would=20
Pasken Chiyuv Get for couples who have been apart for over 18 months, =
those who=20
did usually basing the Psika on Psika by Rav Chayim Filagi ZT"L. =
Some of=20
the comments (usually not for the Protocol) were that he was (a) =
Sephardi =20
or (b) if he lived today he wouldn't consider 18 months separation =
sufficient=20
time to rule out Shalom Bayit.... etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>Just recently (2 days ago!) =
the Dayanim=20
in the Beit Din in Tel Aviv received a copy of a Psikat Chiyuv Get from =
the Beit=20
Din of Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L which stated (Hebrew in English=20
letters):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>"...SheZe Harbe Shanim =
Leika Shlom=20
Bayit VeZeh KeShana Vachetzi [18 months, S.B.] She'Atem Garim BeemKomot =
Shonim"=20
.... "She'lo Ho'eel Kol Hishtadlutam La'asot Shalom..."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>"Ve'Im Ken... Be'Ofen Kazeh =
Muchrachin=20
LeHitgaresh Ve'Ein Reshut Leshum Tzad Le'Agen Lo HaBa'al Et Ishto VeLo =
HaIsha Et=20
HaBa'al..."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>And regarding the second =
issue (b) --=20
rarely till now have Dayanim paskened that couples (in Israel) finish =
the Get=20
and then take care of the financial matters, there are many many cases =
pending=20
where the Dayanim, upon hearing that the parties haven't resolved the =
financial=20
matters, would tell them to go and take care of them and only then =
return for=20
Psikat Get. In this Psak we find the following:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>"...Ve'Ein Reshut LeShum =
Tzad [as=20
above-s.b.] Le'Agen... BeShum Ikuv MeeTzad Tevi'ot =
Mamon...".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>From reports from the Beit =
Din today it=20
sounds like there are going to be some changes in the near future now =
that this=20
psak has been found and confirmed as authentic.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>Shoshana L.=20
Boublil</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0030_01BF6135.DE5F1F00--
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:59:40 EST
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject: Re: MO/Rav
In a message dated 1/17/00 10:17:57 AM US Central Standard Time,
C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:
<< What is the point of labelling people? Why not simply discuss the Rav's
thought without seeking to reduce that complexity into a conveneint label?
Taxonomy is valuable only to the extent that it increases understanding; in
this case, it most certainly does not.
>>
Taxonomy? We stuff kishkes, not rabbis. Unless the point is to make the
rabbis museum pieces. We can't let them become that, if they are to teach us
how to address contemporary realities.
In order better to understand some of the recent threads discussed here, I
picked up a copy of a recent English translation of "Rabbi Israel Salanter
and Mussar Movement," by Immanuel Etkes, originally published in 1982 by the
Hebrew University. It's pretty good. It makes me wonder whether real Mussar
-- as a thorough-going way to understand Torah instead of a 45-minute weekly
add-on shiur (like a high-school health class) -- might not provide pathways
to bridge all sorts of Halachic difficulties that divide us.
What would Mussar think of one's use of the Internet? What would it think, or
lead one to think, about whether one will or will not attend a wedding with
mixed seating? Or allowing women to dance non-erotically in front of men? Or
worrying these issues too much? Or engaging in excessive taxidermy, I mean
taxonomy?
David Finch
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:20:07 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: mixed dancing
In a message dated 1/17/00 12:14:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:
> See Kol Bo (66) who cites a cherem placed by MaHaRaM Rotenberg on mixed
> dancing. (Guess the MaHaRaM also forgot lo tasuru?)
>
This refrence is among many brought in the (previously mentioned) "Halichos
Bas Yisroel" (page 112 footnote #
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:41:32 +0000
From: sadya n targum <targum1@juno.com>
Subject: re:histaklus b'nashim rokdos
Rabbi Bechofer refers to "v'lo sasuru" as the source. This begs the
question. What is the source for this dancing to be a case of "v'lo
sasuru"?
R. Gershon Dubin writes:
Which chasunas have you been going to for the last 20 years?
> Or maybe
> you just don't look and your wife/daughters don't tell you. The
> dancing
> is not *erotic* but it is certainly, often, provocative. Even at
> the
> "shenste" chasunas, their are always some wild dancers among the
> women/girls.
Either we go to different weddings, or it's all in the eyes of the
beholder.
R. Mordechai of Pawtucket, on the Mishna of "bnos yerushalyim cholos
bakramim", responds:
I understood that Mishnah to refer to a group of women walking in a
> circle,
> not exactly a dance. (This is the same idea I have seen used to
> permit a
> "Siman Tov UMazel Tov" dance for a Chasan after his Aufruf Aliyah on
> Shabbos,
> despite the prohibition against dancing on Shabbos.)
Rashi on the Mishna refers to the posuk at the end of Sefer Shoftim.
There, the Mtzudos translates the word as "rikuday simcha." As for the
issur of dancing on Shabbos, Tosfos in Beitzah 30a, d.h. Ain mtapchin,
says that the issur does not apply byameinu, since we lack the knowledge
to be m'saken kli shir. (If not for that heter, how do we justify dancing
on Simchas Torah, which is a lot more than "walking around in a circle"?)
Sadya N. Targum
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:47:22 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject: Re: Agunot: News flash from the Beit Din Rabbani in Tel Aviv
On 17 Jan 00, at 21:57, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
> (I received permission to publish this in this forum b/c of the
> interest shown here)
>
> The topic: Agunot
>
> The issues:
> a) Paskening Chiyuv Get to couples who have spent over 18 months
> apart, and where attempts at Shalom Bayit have failed; and
>
> b) delaying Psikat Get to couples who haven't finished organizing
> their financial issues.
>
> Till now only very few Herkevim would Pasken Chiyuv Get for couples
> who have been apart for over 18 months, those who did usually basing
> the Psika on Psika by Rav Chayim Filagi ZT"L. Some of the comments
> (usually not for the Protocol) were that he was (a) Sephardi or (b)
> if he lived today he wouldn't consider 18 months separation sufficient
> time to rule out Shalom Bayit.... etc.
>
> Just recently (2 days ago!) the Dayanim in the Beit Din in Tel Aviv
> received a copy of a Psikat Chiyuv Get from the Beit Din of Rav Moshe
> Feinstein ZT"L which stated (Hebrew in English letters):
>
> "...SheZe Harbe Shanim Leika Shlom Bayit VeZeh KeShana Vachetzi [18
> months, S.B.] She'Atem Garim BeemKomot Shonim" .... "She'lo Ho'eel Kol
> Hishtadlutam La'asot Shalom..."
>
> "Ve'Im Ken... Be'Ofen Kazeh Muchrachin LeHitgaresh Ve'Ein Reshut
> Leshum Tzad Le'Agen Lo HaBa'al Et Ishto VeLo HaIsha Et HaBa'al..."
>
> And regarding the second issue (b) -- rarely till now have Dayanim
> paskened that couples (in Israel) finish the Get and then take care of
> the financial matters, there are many many cases pending where the
> Dayanim, upon hearing that the parties haven't resolved the financial
> matters, would tell them to go and take care of them and only then
> return for Psikat Get. In this Psak we find the following:
>
> "...Ve'Ein Reshut LeShum Tzad [as above-s.b.] Le'Agen... BeShum Ikuv
> MeeTzad Tevi'ot Mamon...".
>
> >From reports from the Beit Din today it sounds like there are going
> >to be some changes in the near future now that this psak has been
> >found and confirmed as authentic.
Forgive a few dumb questions. Where was this psak of Rav
Moshe? Was it not published in the Igros? And why (whether or not
it was published in the Igros) did it take so long for the Beis Din
here to find it?
-- Carl
Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:54:17 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: mixed dancing
> See Kol Bo (66) who cites a cherem placed by MaHaRaM Rotenberg on mixed
> dancing. (Guess the MaHaRaM also forgot lo tasuru?)
>
This refrence is among many brought in the (previously mentioned) "Halichos
Bas Yisroel" (page 112 footnote # 40), I cite here what he writes -
"Mixed dancing is strictly forbidden" This law is explicity cited in S"A O"C
529:4 and the M"B 529:21. It can also be found in the following
commenteries: Kol Bo 66, citing Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg; Yosef Ometz, No.
97; Binyamin Ze'ev, Vol. 2, No. 303-305; Yam Shel Shlomo, Novellae to
Tractate Gittin, Chapter 1, No. 18. See also Kitzur Shulchan Oruch 152:13;
Oruch Hashulchan, O"C 529:7; Ben Ish Chai, Shana Rishona, Parshas Shoftim 18.
Iggeroth Moshe, Evven HaEzer, Vol. 1, No. 97, and Vol. 2, No.13, and Minchath
Yiotzchak, Vol. 5, No. 99, and Vol. 3, No. 109, emphasize the seriousness of
this sexually-related prohibition, a prohibition so severe that one is
required to sacrifice one's life rather then violate it. Yabiah Omer, Vol.
1, O"C, 30:15 and Vol. 6, Y"D, No. 15, arrives at the identical conclusion,
that dancing for and with men belong to this category of transgressions....
I would like to point to Iggros Moshe E"H Vol. 1, No. 56 paragraph that
begins with "V'hinei" (WRT to permisability to work in place where there
might be Hirhur and/or walking in streets).
I am also translating part of the Yam Shel Shlomo (as that will answer
question about Mishne end of Taanis), "the first sin who permitted them to
dance with the Bsulois, this is not the way that our Chassidim Horishonim
showed us, and the wrote and Darshened the Possuk (Yirmiy'a 31:12) "Oz
Tismach Bsuloh Bmochol Bachurim Uzkeinim Yachdov" this implies that the
Bachurim will be only with the Zkeinim, and the Bsulois will be in their own
Mochol, even Losid, how much more so now that the Satan dances alot, and the
generation is Porutz in sin (akin to my note of Sukkah 52 a YZ), also the
Posuk (Tehilim 148:12) says "Bachurim *Vgam* Bsulois" and he didn't say
"Bachurim *Im* Bsulois", as he says by "Zkeinim *Im* N'arim", but he wants to
emphasize their sepertaion, and from the people of Binyomin is no proof as it
does not say that they were in the Mochol, but so it says (Shoftim 21:21)
"Uri'isem Im Yetzu Bnois Shiloi Lochul Bimchoilois, V'yotzosem Min Hakromim
V'chotaftem etc.", and that at the end of Taanis (31a) also that the
daughters would go out in Mcholos on Y"K and 15 of Av, and they said Bochur
Sa Na Einecho Urei etc, don't place your eyes on beauty etc, it does not say
that the Bchurim joined them in the Mochol, but they stood and saw from the
distance "and this too was done Lsheim Shomayim" that if she would find favor
in his eyes he would merry her, and there is also a Mitzvah to see her
before, as the Gemara says in the begining of Hish Mkadeish (Kiddushin 41a),
however different are the Bochurim today that the entire reason of looking is
only for pleassure.
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:06:48 EST
From: JoshHoff@aol.com
Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #299-Yated
In a message dated 00-01-17 15:04:43 EST, you write:
<<
> <<Yated itself uses the Internet in a way that has been halachically
> approved by the special beis din >>
And which beis din approved all the hotza'as sheim rah against Rav Kook that
they knowingly published,as recorded in Rabbi Alcharar's book "Lichvodah shel
Torah"?
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:32:15 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: mixed dancing
--part1_d8.d484a7.25b4e45f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--part1_d8.d484a7.25b4e45f_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-path: Yzkd@aol.com
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Full-name: Yzkd
Message-ID: <8f.7cbffe.25b4db79@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:54:17 EST
Subject: Re: mixed dancing
To: avodah@aishdas.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39
> See Kol Bo (66) who cites a cherem placed by MaHaRaM Rotenberg on mixed
> dancing. (Guess the MaHaRaM also forgot lo tasuru?)
>
This refrence is among many brought in the (previously mentioned) "Halichos
Bas Yisroel" (page 112 footnote # 40), I cite here what he writes -
"Mixed dancing is strictly forbidden" This law is explicity cited in S"A O"C
529:4 and the M"B 529:21. It can also be found in the following
commenteries: Kol Bo 66, citing Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg; Yosef Ometz, No.
97; Binyamin Ze'ev, Vol. 2, No. 303-305; Yam Shel Shlomo, Novellae to
Tractate Gittin, Chapter 1, No. 18. See also Kitzur Shulchan Oruch 152:13;
Oruch Hashulchan, O"C 529:7; Ben Ish Chai, Shana Rishona, Parshas Shoftim 18.
Iggeroth Moshe, Evven HaEzer, Vol. 1, No. 97, and Vol. 2, No.13, and Minchath
Yiotzchak, Vol. 5, No. 99, and Vol. 3, No. 109, emphasize the seriousness of
this sexually-related prohibition, a prohibition so severe that one is
required to sacrifice one's life rather then violate it. Yabiah Omer, Vol.
1, O"C, 30:15 and Vol. 6, Y"D, No. 15, arrives at the identical conclusion,
that dancing for and with men belong to this category of transgressions....
I would like to point to Iggros Moshe E"H Vol. 1, No. 56 paragraph that
begins with "V'hinei" (WRT to permisability to work in place where there
might be Hirhur and/or walking in streets).
I am also translating part of the Yam Shel Shlomo (as that will answer
question about Mishne end of Taanis), "the first sin who permitted them to
dance with the Bsulois, this is not the way that our Chassidim Horishonim
showed us, and the wrote and Darshened the Possuk (Yirmiy'a 31:12) "Oz
Tismach Bsuloh Bmochol Bachurim Uzkeinim Yachdov" this implies that the
Bachurim will be only with the Zkeinim, and the Bsulois will be in their own
Mochol, even Losid, how much more so now that the Satan dances alot, and the
generation is Porutz in sin (akin to my note of Sukkah 52 a YZ), also the
Posuk (Tehilim 148:12) says "Bachurim *Vgam* Bsulois" and he didn't say
"Bachurim *Im* Bsulois", as he says by "Zkeinim *Im* N'arim", but he wants to
emphasize their sepertaion, and from the people of Binyomin is no proof as it
does not say that they were in the Mochol, but so it says (Shoftim 21:21)
"Uri'isem Im Yetzu Bnois Shiloi Lochul Bimchoilois, V'yotzosem Min Hakromim
V'chotaftem etc.", and that at the end of Taanis (31a) also that the
daughters would go out in Mcholos on Y"K and 15 of Av, and they said Bochur
Sa Na Einecho Urei etc, don't place your eyes on beauty etc, it does not say
that the Bchurim joined them in the Mochol, but they stood and saw from the
distance "and this too was done Lsheim Shomayim" that if she would find favor
in his eyes he would merry her, and there is also a Mitzvah to see her
before, as the Gemara says in the begining of Hish Mkadeish (Kiddushin 41a),
however different are the Bochurim today that the entire reason of looking is
only for pleassure.
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
--part1_d8.d484a7.25b4e45f_boundary--
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:43:55 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: histaklus b'nashim rokdos
See B'eir Heteiv Even haHezer 21:2 from the Radvaz that the prohibition of
walking behind a women is so far that "Makir Umavchin Bah Bhilucha
*Ubit'nuoiseha*", and that this prohibition is on all men and in all places
even where the women go covered from head to toe and see the Pischei Tsuvah
there.
> Rashi on the Mishna refers to the posuk at the end of Sefer Shoftim.
> There, the Mtzudos translates the word as "rikuday simcha."
The Mtzudois has 2 Pshatim the second being that Mchoilois refers to an
instrument, (as he Teitches that way Mchoilois by the Eigel), although here
on Yom Kippur we cannot say that they went out with and used instruments, It
is no Rayoh what the Teitch of the word is, (Rashi's reference is not to the
Teitch of Mochol as to the word "Choilois"), and see Rashi D"H Mochol end of
Taanis, (which may mean without any movement) HOWEVER the Targum uses the
word Changah consistently which means dance.
As an aside by Rashi bringing that Possuk he is also Mirameiz the source of
the Choilois on Y"K and 15th of Av, (Hutar Shevet Binyomin).
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:41:09 +0200
From: "Mrs. Gila Atwood" <gatwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject: Achdus
> >
> > Please forgive me but I think I need to puncture some
> > balloons. I am quite sick of all this Chareidi/MO RW/LW.
> > Reading letters by Rav Kook ZT"L and some of the posts in
> > the latest issues of Avodah, and seeing the ban on Internet
> > has brought fwd, IMHO one of the basic true differences
> > between so-called Chareidi and Dati Leumi: Yirah vs. Ahava.
> >
> > The term Chareidi is used by RW to denote "Chareid Lidvar
> > Hashem" -- fear, or Avodah MiYir'ah -- and the emphasise on
> > Gedeirot and Harchakot "b/c who knows where our Yetzer could
> > lead us?"
Yasher Co'ach!
I too am rather saddened by the "judging at a distance" which sometimes
rears it's ugly head here. I acknowledge that I too have been guilty of it
to some extent. Let's please recognize our own faults, and the zchuyot of
the other!
This is no criticism of Rabbanit Boublil's post but just an observation:
(humour alert)
I've frequently heard various chassidim say that our derech is "ahava vs.
yirah" in relation to misnagdim and I've heard Jewish Renewal people say
that their derech is 'ahava vs. yirah' in relation to Orthodoxy!
We see from the balance of the sephirot that we need both ahava and yirah-
we need chessed and gevurah. We need Avraham Avinu and Yitzhak the olah
temimah. We need limits and measures, (gevurah) but of course, not to
occlude ahava. We can't reach proper ahavas Hashem without appropriate
yirah- yirah and NOT pachad. There is Hashem's abundant love, and there is
also tzimtzum.
Ultimately, we have to get together, recognize the merits of what the other
guys are saying, take care of our own houses and ultimately balance clal
Israel with all our combined strengths. Mrs. G. Atwood.
> >
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:34:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Modern Orthodox narrow mindness
--- Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> > You wouldn't agree that taking an opponents view
> to
> > it's absurd conclusion is a valid step towards
> > rebuttal of your opponents view?
>
> Not if one has respect for the other person and his
> point of view. You could
> have brought the example of assuring books and
> magazines because pornography
> exists, or assuring the phone because people speak
> lashon haRah. Those would
> have been a valid ad absurdum arguments, making your
> point while not making
> fun of the opponent.
I'm wasn't really making fun of my opponent. I was
merely trying to use reducto ad absurdum in a humorous
fashion which I believe is more effective. It
certainly wasn't Ad Hominum.
I hope.
HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:39:23 EST
From: Tobrr111@aol.com
Subject: Ad absurdum arguments
In a message dated 1/17/00 3:32:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, Micha Berger
writes:
<< Reducio ad absuraum is a useful tool in finding the emes. If an argument
can be used to prove the absurd, then it is clearly sheker. >>
I disagree. REGARDLESS OF ANY SPECIFIC TOPIC, I do not feel that taking an
argument to it's most radical conclusion disproves the argument at all. It
seems to me that there is always gray area not everything is so black and
white. Some examples might be the following. The Gemorah (end of gittin) says
that there are 3 ways people allow their wives to interact with other men.
The Gemorah says that the preferable way is that a women should not socialize
with all, but a husband should "allow" his wife to speak with her brothers,
relatives, and neighbors. The Gemorah says that there are some "frum" men who
lock their wives at home all day and don't let them speak to anyone. The
rationale of such men is that since "kol kevada bas melech pinima" let's take
this argument to it's Ad absurdum and not allow any interaction at all. What
they are doing is "using an argument to prove the absurd," but the gemorah
feels that while kol kevuda is good that doesn't mean its most absurd degree
is good.
Another argument might be the Religious attitude to Israel. I think it is
perfectly rational that one can be theoretically opposed to the State without
that requiring him to take the argument to the "absurd" degree of meeting
with Arafat and Farakhan.
In general we are told to take the "middle road" and not take every argument
to it's absurd conclusion.( Rambam hilchos deos).
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:48:19 -0800
From: "Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>
Subject: boro park eruv
have been following this topic in jewish press. can't get a feel for what
is going on on the ground. are people really going to use it?
/
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:18:38 EST
From: Chaimwass@aol.com
Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #299
<< Yated itself uses the Internet in a way that has been halachically
> approved by the special beis din established for Internet issues (e.g.,
> when it downloaded the NYTimes article).
> Comments anyone?>> >>
One question: Along with all of the authoritative restictions on Internet and
other such smut, has anyone heard "meiachorei hapargod" (perhaps at the
pre-registration session of last Thannksgiving weekend assembly of gedolei
Torah) if the New York Times itself was prohibited from being sold, read or
brought on to the premises of the august assemblage?
Follow-up question: Has anyone taken a look at the advertisements these days
in the NY Times especially in Sunday's magazine section?
Follow-up to the follow-up question: Any talk heard in or around Torah
Umesorah about restricting the delivery of and the study of NY Times in the
classroom
chaim wasserman
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:23:08 EST
From: Chidekel@aol.com
Subject: Rav Berkovits and Rav Weinberg
Some one said that Marc Shapiro (who just published a book about Rav
Weinberg) said that he had a letter from Rav Weinberg, where he criticized
Rav Berkovits's approach to halacha as Conservative. I wrote to Marc Shapiro
for clarification, and he asked me to post the following:
I can send you a copy of the letter if you want. What R. Weinberg said was
that one article that R. Berkovits wrote was was unacceptable. Apparently
this created quite a controversy in Chicago and R. Weinberg was asked his
opinion. In this letter he also praised R. Berkovits, and said that he must
have written this letter in a period of spiritual distress or excitement (I
can't remember at present his exact words). Some people were questioning if
they should withdraw their support from HTC and R. Weinberg said absolutely
not, and that he heard from many rabbis in America that R. Berkovits was
doing a great job teaching Torah and battling the Conservative approach. As
far as R. Weinberg was concerned, this article did not represent R.
Berkovits' true nature and was a "slip of the pen" as it were. As you know R.
Weinberg recommended that R. Berkovits write the book on conditional divorce
so we know that he always had great esteem for R. Berkovits. R. Berkovits'
more radical views were only expressed after R. Weinberg was no longer alive.
Please post this so that R. Berkovits' memory is not tarnished.
Marc
Meir Shinnar
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:59:44 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Rav Berkovits and Rav Weinberg
In a message dated 1/17/00 8:13:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, Chidekel@aol.com
writes:
<< Please post this so that R. Berkovits' memory is not tarnished.
Marc >>
It was my understanding that R' Berkovits saved the ktvei yad of R' Weinberg
from the shoa and that these were what the sefer Sridei Eish were based on.
Is this correct?
Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:32:09 EST
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject: Re: use of chareidi on Avodah
R' Micha Berger wrote:
<<< I was looking for a nicer term than "ultra-O" that describes those
properties that "Yeshivish" and "Chassidish" have in common. >>>
My personal favorite is "Shomer Mitzvos".
But then he clarified more precisely, the kind of term he's looking for:
<<< That something that makes it unsurprising to find a Belzer Chossid in
Lakewood, but surprising to find him in YU. >>>
I think the whole point of this thread is that we should be fighting
these stereotypes. Yes, we are human and we do succumb to categorizing
people we know, and even more so regarding people we don't know. But we
should be congnizant of this tendency and we should be consciously
fighting it.
There are plenty of situations where I am surprised to find that a person
aligns himself in a certain way regarding a certain issue. But I try to
engage my brain before my mouth says anything stupid. Why should I be
surprised that he doesn't fit into the box that I had imagined him to be
in? I certainly fight for my own independent thinking!
A Shabbos at my shul has a very nice mix of black hats of varied brims,
and kipot of all types (not to mention the variety on the other side of
the mechitza). And also have exactly one member with a beautiful
streimel. A friend recently wondered out loud why the streimel-wearer
comes to this shul. I answered him simply, "I like it here. You like it
here. Why do you think he wouldn't like it here?"
Akiva Miller
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Go to top.
*********************
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/ ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]